This begs the question: Do the withdrawal requests contain any publishable specifics as to why these status changes should not go forward? Yours, Peter N. M. Hansteen IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The following Last Call has been withdrawn by request of the area director: > > The IESG has received a request from multiple participants to make > the following status changes: > > - RFC5343 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard > (Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID > Discovery) > > - RFC5991 from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard > (Teredo Security Updates) > > - RFC5590 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard > (Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol > (SNMP)) > > - RFC6353 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard > (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple > Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) > -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.